----- Original Message ----- From: "Charles Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Robert Collins wrote: > But if setup used an external library (or program) it would have to be a > non-cygwin version, right? Not necessarily. Cygwin1.dll can be loaded dynamically. > > Using an external helper, via a bootstrap process will be a lot easier, > > but will sacrifice the functionality when on a non-cygwin machine. > > You're assuming that the external helper is a cygwin program, I guess. Yes. > Ummm...I'm reminded of Dario's rpm-based cygwin distribution. He had a > bootstrap phase that installed cygwin(dll, bare minumum tools, rpm > itself), and then used rpm to install everything else... > > If we're going to go with a two phase setup, then his idea makes more sense > than continuing to roll our own. The big argument against his plan was > > (a) two phase is bad (b) why throw away our perfectly good setup tool. Okay, > > that's two arguments. ;-) I don't think two phase is bad, but supporting the download-only version on non-cygwin machines is the cruncher. As for b) I'm very much in favour of setup.exe being the user interface - to whatever does the dirty work, be that setup.exe or another tool. > > So I'm in favour of internal code/static library linkage. A dynamic > > library _could_ be used, but we'd ned to treat it as a special case, not > > as a standard isntall-and-log package. > > Yep. But if it's a special case, then we might as well link it in > statically. If it were in a DLL, we can't update it on-the-fly from > setup because setup.exe is still using it...so updates of that DLL have > to be done manually. Exactly. (About the special case -> link static logic). As for updating the .dll that's not a problem. Here's why. The .dll will not be in setup.exe's import table so setup.exe can check the dll's version as the first thing it does. > > The alternative to internal/static code is to go down the path of > > splitting setup into two builds, but as we'd _still_ have to get the > > download-without-cygwin part right, I see no benefit in this. > > Also, > http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2001-07/msg00074.html > > I seem to remember that in early september Dario actually put together > an ISO that embodied his whole rpm-based cygwin dist including a > tk/tcl-based 'bootstrap' installer... Which was really neat. I should get that out an review it :]. Rob
